FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   392   393   394   395   396   397   398   399   400   401   402   403   404   405   406   407   408   409   410   411   412   413   414   415   416  
417   418   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   >>   >|  
and either deny or admit them. Had the prisoner at the bar, then, a knowledge of this conspiracy or not? This is the question. Instead of laying out their strength in complaining of the _manner_ in which the deed is discovered, of the extraordinary pains taken to bring the prisoner's guilt to light, would it not be better to show there was no guilt? Would it not be better to show his innocence? They say, and they complain, that the community feel a great desire that he should be punished for his crimes. Would it not be better to convince you that he has committed no crime? Gentlemen, let us now come to the case. Your first inquiry, on the evidence, will be, Was Captain White murdered in pursuance of a conspiracy, and was the defendant one of this conspiracy? If so, the second inquiry is, Was he so connected with the murder itself as that he is liable to be convicted as a _principal_? The defendant is indicted as a _principal_. If not guilty _as such_, you cannot convict him. The indictment contains three distinct classes of counts. In the first, he is charged as having done the deed with his own hand; in the second, as an aider and abettor to Richard Crowninshield, Jr., who did the deed; in the third, as an aider and abettor to some person unknown. If you believe him guilty on either of these counts, or in either of these ways, you must convict him. It may be proper to say, as a preliminary remark, that there are two extraordinary circumstances attending this trial. One is, that Richard Crowninshield, Jr., the supposed immediate perpetrator of the murder, since his arrest, has committed suicide. He has gone to answer before a tribunal of perfect infallibility. The other is, that Joseph Knapp, the supposed originator and planner of the murder, having once made a full disclosure of the facts, under a promise of indemnity, is, nevertheless, not now a witness. Notwithstanding his disclosure and his promise of indemnity, he now refuses to testify. He chooses to return to his original state, and now stands answerable himself, when the time shall come for his trial. These circumstances it is fit you should remember, in your investigation of the case. Your decision may affect more than the life of this defendant. If he be not convicted as principal, no one can be. Nor can any one be convicted of a participation in the crime as accessory. The Knapps and George Crowninshield will be again on the community. This shows the imp
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   392   393   394   395   396   397   398   399   400   401   402   403   404   405   406   407   408   409   410   411   412   413   414   415   416  
417   418   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

principal

 

convicted

 
murder
 

defendant

 

conspiracy

 

Crowninshield

 

inquiry

 

promise

 

disclosure

 

committed


indemnity

 
abettor
 
Richard
 

convict

 
circumstances
 

counts

 

supposed

 

guilty

 

prisoner

 

community


extraordinary

 

originator

 

Joseph

 

planner

 
tribunal
 

perpetrator

 
attending
 

arrest

 

witness

 

perfect


answer

 
suicide
 

infallibility

 

original

 

decision

 
affect
 

participation

 
George
 

accessory

 

Knapps


investigation

 

stands

 
return
 

chooses

 

refuses

 
testify
 

answerable

 
remember
 

Notwithstanding

 

connected